23. 5.

2020 Reclaiming Social Justice - Public Discourse

Reclaiming Social Justice

May 19, 2020 By Andy Smarick and Bruno V. Manno

The term “social justice” is typically associated with an aggressively

progressive political agenda led by a muscular Uncle Sam. But there is an
alternative understanding of social justice—one that is especially well-
suited to helping the nation address many of today’s most troubling
challenges. It’s time for conservatives to explain this approach and
articulate an agenda for the future based on it.

Today, the term “social justice” is invoked almost exclusively by those on

the political left. Those on the right seldom even engage in these debates.
This shouldn’t be the case, both because the term has roots in a set of
principles often embraced by conservatives, and because the issues at
stake are too important to ignore. Conservatives should not only reclaim
social justice but should also allow its lessons to shape an agenda for the
future.

The progressive approach generally begins with the view that much of
society is flawed or expressly unjust. Power is unequally distributed. The
economic order privileges the advantaged and exploits the vulnerable. This
understanding is then coupled with strident rhetoric about the unfairness
of social and governing arrangements and advocacy of policy prescriptions
designed to bring about “equity.”

This approach can motivate supporters by describing conditions and

solutions in blunt and pressing terms. But it can also prove divisive by
weakening trust in institutions, traditions, and norms. By indicting so much
of our economic and social life, this vision of social justice implicates the
organizations, beliefs, practices, and relationships that many of us
appreciate and rely on. It also separates individuals into groups—the haves
and the have-nots, the privileged and the unprivileged—who then,
understandably, see themselves as antagonists instead of partners in a
joint enterprise.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63239/ 1/4
23. 5. 2020 Reclaiming Social Justice - Public Discourse

When this kind of social-justice language is at its most zealous, it can make
civility, cooperation, and accommodation seem like part of the problem. It
can imply that the only way to solve our problems is through the “correct”
vision of justice and swift, uncompromising, uniform interventions. As a
result, in our public discourse, social justice is typically associated with an
aggressively progressive political agenda led by a muscular Uncle Sam.

There is an alternative understanding of social justice that is especially well

suited to helping the nation address many of today’s most troubling
challenges. It’s time for conservatives to explain this approach and
articulate an agenda for the future based on it.

Social Justice as a Virtue

This alternative definition isn’t built on a utopian vision for society, nor
does it envision bulked-up governing authorities far away. Instead, it sees
social justice as a virtue or set of habits in individual actors. It seeks to
guide how we behave on our own and within our little platoons in society.

In Social Justice Isn’t What You Think It Is, Paul Adams and the late Michael
Novak explained the term’s origins in philosophy and Catholic social
teaching—how it developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries in response to industrialization and the centralization of
overbearing government power. This older understanding of social justice
was rooted in individual and community duties and authorities.

Adams and Novak argue that pairing “social” with the word “justice”—
justice being a term exhaustively debated for millennia—signifies at least
two important ideas: that justice requires an appreciation of the common
good, and that there are social practices associated with realizing the
common good. Those practices include forming voluntary associations,
cooperating in local activities, and participating in civic affairs. A
similar definition argues that social justice is the result of individuals and
associations being able to obtain their due according to their nature and
vocations.

Social Justice as a Guide for Domestic Policy

This gives those on the political right, in particular, a way to think about
engaging with domestic policy issues. First, it encourages individuals to join
with others in forming voluntary associations and other types of mediating
institutions, so that citizens can solve common challenges together. This
view doesn’t look first for large, impersonal, faraway public or private
bodies to define and solve problems. Instead, it affirms that citizens can
and should collaborate with their family members, friends, and neighbors
to address the challenges of the day.

Second, it aims to achieve the common good first and foremost at the
community level, not just at the national or international level. It directs
collective efforts toward shared, local goals—not private interests. It
respects individuals and allows societies, and the institutions on which they
rely, to thrive.

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63239/ 2/4
23. 5. 2020 Reclaiming Social Justice - Public Discourse

This understanding of social justice, therefore, provides special direction to

those engaged in public policy as it relates to schools, social services,
housing, transportation, or any number of other issues. It encourages
advocates, policymakers, and their staffs to think in terms of civil-society
activity and local initiative. When setting out to tackle an issue, we can ask
whether Washington and state capitals are deciding what’s most
important, or whether communities are setting the priorities; whether
government agencies are confronting problems directly, or whether the
government is catalyzing non-governmental bodies to take the lead;
whether state programs depend on uniform, centrally developed,
technocratic initiatives, or whether America’s great pluralism should be
encouraged to develop a vast array of solutions to problems.

Individual Agency, Social Challenges, and the Common Good

Undergirding all of this is a recognition of the importance of agency and

differentiation—the ability of people and communities to be in charge and
address challenges in myriad ways. To be clear, the “common good,” to
which social justice is tethered, is not infinitely malleable. It can’t simply be
redefined to suit one’s preferences. As the Catechism of the Catholic
Churchexplains, the common good requires respect for individual rights,
the social well-being and development of the group, and the stability and
security that comes with peace. But the Catechism is less specific about
how to realize all of this through the practice of governing, even noting that
the diversity of governing regimes is morally acceptable, so long as these
approaches serve the good of their communities.

So we can understand social justice as accommodating a range of priorities

and strategies that emerge from individuals’ exercising their natural liberty.
Indeed, experimentation by groups—healthy experimentation that adheres
to sacrosanct principles, is informed by practical considerations, and is
shaped by deliberation—will help us understand and pursue the common
good. Social justice does not, therefore, dictate a single, big, fixed, state-
mandated answer. It can, instead, foster an amalgam of micro-strategies.

Some social challenges—how to solve a town’s opioid-addiction crisis, how

to help a region’s out-of-work men, how to care for a city’s foster kids—
might not have uniform solutions, much less uniform solutions that can be
managed and enforced by a central authority. On such matters, a humble
understanding of social justice would expect that communities—using local
traditions, practice wisdom, and public deliberation—could reach different
but similarly valid conclusions. It would see, for instance, that the wise use
of financial investments, governmental or philanthropic, should energize
different approaches fashioned by community leaders—not just scaling
strategies preferred by “experts.”

Seeking Subsidiarity and Solidarity

Two related notions bolster this understanding of social justice. One

is subsidiarity, a principle that describes a way of preserving the dignity
and authority of individuals and groups while ensuring that they take their
responsibilities seriously. It protects the rights and powers of smaller

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63239/ 3/4
23. 5. 2020 Reclaiming Social Justice - Public Discourse

groups—families, towns, community associations—from encroachment by

larger entities. But it also requires that groups collaborate and support one
another. It simultaneously decentralizes authority and organizes numerous
communities to assist one another as they pursue overarching goals.

Another notion is solidarity: the expectation that, as bearers of a shared

humanity, we seek the common good of all. Though power can be
decentralized and differences in traditions and priorities are legitimate,
solidarity keeps individuals from splintering into unfriendly factions. It asks
that we care for one another, especially the most vulnerable. Social justice
thus requires the practice of “social charity,” a firmness of purpose based
on respect, cooperation, and tolerance.

Because both progressive and conservative approaches to social justice

aim for fairness and the protection of individual dignity, especially for the
most vulnerable, there is overlap between them. So there is room for
common cause among those on the right and left. However, the origins
and implications of the more conservative understanding seem to have
been mostly forgotten or neglected. They ought to be elevated in our
public discussions.

By way of conclusion, four points seem essential: to appreciate the value of

individual agency and voluntary associations; to recognize the danger of
investing too much authority in distant, powerful bodies; to protect the
right of groups to take distinctive forms and pursue different activities,
while also holding such groups responsible for meeting their obligations;
finally, especially today, to commit to civic participation, temperance, and
collaboration.

This alternative approach to social justice is exactly what’s needed in these

difficult times. When people are frustrated and divided and political
language is radioactive, we could use more modesty, trust, and
accommodation. Such an approach could present a strategy for
counteracting the alienation and polarization that pervades our
overheated politics.

About the Author

ANDY SMARICK
Andy Smarick is civil society, education and work director at
the R Street Institute. Previously he was a Morgridge Fellow
at the American Enterprise Institute and served as president
of the Maryland State Board of Education. He has worked at
the White House as an aide in the... READ MORE

BRUNO V. MANNO
Bruno V. Manno is Senior Adviser for K-12 Education with
the Walton Family Foundation. Prior to that he was Senior
Associate for Education with the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
He served as US Assistant Secretary of Education for Policy
and Planning, in addition to holding other se... READ MORE

https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/05/63239/ 4/4